linux-kernel - Re: IPSec questions and comments

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210726081350.GM893739@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:13:50 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
CC:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IPSec questions and comments

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 08:01:17PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Bcc: 
> Subject: IPSec questions
> Reply-To: minyard@....org
> 
> I've been going through the XFRM code trying to understand it.  I've
> been documenting things in the code as I go.
> 
> I have a specific usage question, then a general question:
> 
> 1) In struct xfrm_dst, what is the difference between the route and path
> fields?  From what I can tell, in the first element of a bundle they
> will both point the route the packet will take after it has been
> transformed.  In the other elements of a bundle, route is the same as in
> the first element and path will be NULL.  Is this really the intent?
> Can path just be eliminated?

Eyal gave a good explanation of this.

> 
> 2) This code is really hard to understand.  Nobody should have to go
> through what I'm going through.  If I can convince my employer to allow
> me to submit the comments I'm adding, would that be something acceptable?
> It would obviously take a lot of time to review.  If nobody's going to
> have the time to review it, I don't need to put forth the extra effort
> to make it submittable.

Documentation is always welcome. If you submit your documentation
in small reviewable patches, then it should be accepted and merged
over time.